Another Brandon Teena . . .

[MaxTheVool]

*Originally posted by Larry Mudd *
**MaxTheVool:
Yes, it is hard to believe, but only because it’s so far outside of our experience. And your intuition is correct, my description was not an accurate description of the 1400’s – my confusion, as it’s something I came across while studying Chaucer-- by then the situation had changed dramatically due to exotic influences, although there were vestigial traces of that way of thinking:

Also many references in early lit. to young men as “meer girles.”

(Sorry for the hijack, carry on folks.) **

I still just plain don’t believe you. It would be one thing if facial hair was viewed as a far far more important secondary sexual characteristic, on the same level as breast development, than it is in our culture, so that a smooth faced man would be open to far more mockery, or what have you. But you’re going far past even that and saying that the very definition of a woman had nothing to do with breasts, vagina, menstruation, or bearing children, but was simply based on lack of facial hair?

I just can’t believe that’s true, if for no other reason than that children have no facial hair at all, and it seems unlikely that children would not be assigned gender roles until adolescence when they either did, or did not, grow beards.

[Lamia]

*Originally posted by Shodan *
**Nope. First you said gender wasn’t a biological construct, then you said it was influenced by biology.

**

No I did not. I said that it is possible that there may be some biological factors that influence gender identity. I have placed the words you seem to have missed the first two times around in italics so they will be more likely to catch your attention the third time.

As individuals we all possess a variety of psychological and behavioral traits. Some of these seem to have a strong biological basis, while others seem to have no biological basis at all. There are two big (although perhaps not all-inclusive) groups of traits that society has labelled “feminine” and “masculine”. Possession of certain of these “feminine” or “masculine” traits may be partially or entirely due to biological factors such as genetics, body chemistry, and brain structure. But while it might in some cases be true to say “I identify as ‘feminine’ because I possess trait B, and I possess trait B because I possess brain structure A” this does not make gender a biological construct. It was not nature that stuck the “feminine” label on trait B and tossed it into the box with “likes to wear pretty dresses” and “cried at the end of Titanic”.

Kelly phrases things very differently from the way I would, but I don’t think I disagree with her take on the matter in any significant way. If her explanation is easier for you to understand then by all means, go with that one.

**
No, it is quite literally true that it was difficult to tell what sex Eddie/Gwen was, and that this was his/her intent.

**

It wasn’t at all difficult to tell what sex Gwen was. Her murderers certainly seem to have had an easy time of figuring out what it was once they became determined to know. It also wasn’t at all difficult to tell what gender she was. She apparently did her best to make that clear to everyone. You can’t blame the poor girl if her gender and her physical sex didn’t “match up” in a socially acceptable way.

**
The guys he had sex with seemed to have gotten the idea from somewhere, and their subsequent actions certainly show that they would not have had sex with him if they knew he was a biological and physical male.

**

And once again you avoid answering my very clear and direct question. I will ask you again, do you have any evidence or reason to suspect that Gwen Araujo ever claimed to have a vagina? If you don’t, you really must stop saying that she lied about her physical sex.

**
**If a “woman” can have a penis or] a vagina, and can have XX or XY chromosomes, then in saying so-and-so is a woman, you haven’t succeeded in saying anything at all.
**

If there’s nothing more to being a woman than having a vagina and XX chromosomes then there are very few situations in which one would ever need to say “so-and-so is a woman”. It would be completely irrelevant in any non-reproductive context.

[matt_mcl]

*Originally posted by j_kat_251 *
**Well, actually, dickhead, I’d be thinking that for most fucking sane people, the “fact” (as presented in this thread) that male isn’t necessarily male and female ain’t necessarily female is kind of, well… lacking. **

You know, there are still some people who think that boys can’t fall in love with other boys. There are entire societies that believe this. Doesn’t make it true.

[DocCathode]

*Originally posted by j_kat_251 *
**Well, actually, dickhead, I’d be thinking that for most fucking sane people, the “fact” (as presented in this thread) that male isn’t necessarily male and female ain’t necessarily female is kind of, well… lacking. **

Most people also find quantum mechanics lacking.

Most people accept as fact the ULs debunked on Snopes.

And yet the Earth moves.

[Guinastasia]

I once saw a bearded lady at McDonalds…

[Shodan]

matt_mcl -

If there is no way to determine what the words you use mean, how do I know what you are saying? Then how can they convey any meaning?

Indeterminacy does equate to meaninglessness in communication.

Regards,
Shodan

[matt_mcl]

Indeterminacy does equate to meaninglessness in communication.

No, it doesn’t. A word’s meaning not being set in stone is not thing as a word’s not having any meaning at all. In fact, if a language is strictly deterministic, it’s not a language any more, it’s a scientific symbol system. One of the features of the words of human language is that they have a definite core of meaning but fuzziness around the edges. Especially big concepts like “boy” and “girl” (or “god,” “human,” “good,” “gay,” “Canadian”…)

[matt_mcl]

Another thought: words describe reality; they shouldn’t try to define it. We shouldn’t be able to say, “The Merriam-Webster dictionary says that a woman is someone with XX, and the M-W is always right. Therefore, you sir are not a woman!” to Eve or KellyM.

[Larry_Mudd]

Shodan, we have the Humpty-Dumpty problem here: “When I use a word, it means just what I want it to mean, nothing more, nothing less.”

You are arguing from a position that gender is determined by genitalia.

Others are arguing from the position that gender is determined by something more subtle.

What we have to ask ourselves is which position is more useful? Which one describes objective reality more accurately?

[Larry_Mudd]

I really should preview.

[Shodan]

Larry Mudd -

No I’m not. I am arguing about sex, the rest are arguing about gender, and making sure that gender can refer to anything at all.

They are not arguing that gender is determined by anything at all besides whatever is in the mind of whoever wants to use the concept to confuse the issue.

Which, I am sorry to say, makes the discussion pointless. No matter what anyone believes about what they are saying, they just say “No, I meant gender roles, not sex, and my gender role involves what I was thinking about but never mentioned to you.”

Regards,
Shodan

[Lamia]

So Shodan, should we all take this as your admission that you are just too simpleminded to grasp sophisticated concepts like “gender”? You must be even more fun in discussions about politics and religion, which are after all just thoughts in people’s heads and have nothing to do with important things like who has a pee-pee and who has a wee-wee.

[KellyM]

Lamia, you’re being charitable in assuming he simply fails to grasp them. I think, rather, that Shodan is claiming that your “sophisticated” concept of gender is a load of bullshit and that the only thing that really matters really is who has a doo-dad and who has a hoo-hah (and especially that nobody with a doo-dad be tricked into accidentially getting frisky with someone else who also has a doo-dad, as that would make him gay and we can’t have that).

In other words, he’s a closeminded homophobic bigot.

[Homebrew]

You must be even more fun in discussions about politics and religion,…

I’ll vouch for that.

[Shodan]

*Originally posted by KellyM *
**Lamia, you’re being charitable in assuming he simply fails to grasp them. I think, rather, that Shodan is claiming that your “sophisticated” concept of gender is a load of bullshit and that the only thing that really matters really is who has a doo-dad and who has a hoo-hah (and especially that nobody with a doo-dad be tricked into accidentially getting frisky with someone else who also has a doo-dad, as that would make him gay and we can’t have that).

In other words, he’s a closeminded homophobic bigot. **

I’m astonished.

I did get my point across, although there is a lot of other baggage included in the above that doesn’t come from me.

In particular the last part of the first paragraph, about the importance of not tricking someone into having sex with someone else. No, that doesn’t make anyone gay, since heterosexual rape of a lesbian doesn’t make her straight, but yes, the important thing is that sex without informed consent is wrong.

Although I still have problems with the idea that objecting to being tricked into homosex makes one closed-minded, homophobic, or bigoted.

Progress, even with the silly name-calling. Who’da thunk it.

Regards,
Shodan

[E-Sabbath]

I think Shodan has a good point, that may be overlooked here.

It’s about truth and honesty. And about the fact that there are unreconstructed cro-morons out there. I’m going to get burned for saying this, so I’m going to put it as simply as I can.

The world is not safe. The world is not ethical.

If you’re a woman wearing a five thousand dollar fur coat over a bikini made of solid gold, and you walk through MLK in the Bronx at 2 AM, you really should be concerned for your safety. Yes, it’s not right if someone mugs you. It’s not right if someone rapes you. But there are certain things that are simply, in today’s imperfect world, very, very dangerous.

I feel that Ms. Brandon, in choosing to have what certainly appears to be casual sex at a party, certainly engaged in highly risky behavior. It’s not right what happened. But it was a darn foolish thing to do, especially when you consider the testosterone mix of human male adolescents, and the effects when combined with alcohol.

Someone who is… of unconventional gender, has the responsibility to themselves, and to their partners, to make sure everyone is fully informed before any action is taken. Otherwise, in a very real way, it is taking advantage of a person. Perhaps not rape, but it could be considered akin to being swindled.

Let’s say a virgin male teenager has sex with a woman. She appears to dislike his technique, his presence, and everything about him. He is, apparently, the worst thing she can think of, and she is forcing herself to have sex with him.
The scars on his psyche will quite probably, never heal. Of course, he doesn’t know that the girl is pretty sure she’s a lesbian, and just wants to find out for sure.

Or, of course, vice versa. A teenage girl and a guy, who happens to be pretty sure he’s gay.
Sex is not a business transaction. It is an emotional commitment.
And if one partner lies, it hurts. No matter who you are.

[KellyM]

E-Sabbath, any point you might have had was lost when you called Brandon Teena “Ms. Brandon”.

[DocCathode]

*Originally posted by KellyM *
**E-Sabbath, any point you might have had was lost when you called Brandon Teena “Ms. Brandon”. **

Well that and the fact that he apparently conflated their stories. He mentions Brandon dying after having casual sex at a party.
E-Sabbath-
Gwen was killed after having sex at a party.
Brandon was killed by men who had known him as male and never had sex with him before. They did, however, rape him before beating him to death.

[Dr.Lao]

I think E-Sabbath is confusing the case described in the OP with the Brandon Teena case. I don’t think Brandon consented to have sex with anyone who did not know he was not biologically male.

[E-Sabbath]

Er, forgive me, I meant Ms. Araujo. I got dyslexic on ‘Brandon Teena’ and ‘Teena Brandon’ and crossed the two cases.
Mea culpa, but I intended to use the proper name.